Waiting for a train to arrive is rarely pleasurable, but at least sitting in stations like Grand Central, Philadelphia’s 30th Street or D.C.’s Union station, one can pass the time looking at the classic architecture. Those taking New Jersey transit, the LIRR or Amtrak from New York City are not so lucky. But Penn Station wasn’t always so aesthetically displeasing—the old station, demolished in 1963 and replaced with today’s complex, which includes Madison Square Garden, was an architectural standout.
The destruction of the old Penn Station is what brought about the landmarks movement in the city, and the creation of the Landmarks Preservation Commission in 1965. Since that time the commission has created more than 29,000 buildings and sites, including 107 historic districts and 16 historic district extensions. It has saved many of the city’s historic buildings, and without it the city today would probably look like a very different place.
But the recent battle over creating a historic skyscraper district in Downtown Brooklyn raised an unresolved question: Is historic preservation always the right choice? New York City’s very first historic district was established in Brooklyn Heights on November 23, 1965. One of the commission’s most recent designations sits adjacent to this neighborhood, and on Feb. 1 received final approval from the full City Council. This bustling center of Downtown Brooklyn is where Borough Hall is located. The district includes 21 skyscrapers and tall office buildings.
But not everyone in the area is applauding, especially at 75 Livingston Street.
The Livingston Street co-op is the only residential skyscraper included in the Downtown Brooklyn historic district. Its residents objected to its inclusion because of the added costs they say comes with being landmarked. Ellen Murphy, the president of the building’s co-op board, says the board told the commission that it had already spent a lot of money repairing and restoring the building, and co-op residents believe that landmark designation was unnecessary, as they are already preserving the character of the building.
After 75 Livingston was completed in 1927, the ornate building started to deteriorate because of its façade materials, which were not well suited to the area’s weather, and due to lack of upkeep. The building was vacant for most of the 1970s, until the office building was converted to a co-op. In the mid to late 1980s the residents invested some six million dollars in restoring the building to the way it looked originally, says Murphy.
In addition to a mortgage, co-op owners pay a maintenance fee, and the amount of that fee rises with added repair costs. But up until now the decision on whether or not to raise those costs has been up to the co-op board. Now that the building is part of a historic district, how much to spend and what to spend repair money on will also be in the hands of the Landmark Preservation Commission, which must approve repairs or alternations made to the building.
“We recognized and very much appreciated that the current board is an excellent steward of its remarkable building, but there’s no guarantee its successors will be as conscientious and preservation-minded,” says Landmark Preservation Commission communications director Elisabeth de Bourbon.
Murphy finds the situation unfair. “We get compliments for being good stewards of this building and now we’re being asked to pay a surcharge for our good behavior,” she says.
For example, one added cost is the materials, says Murphy, citing the terracotta decoration on the building facade. It’s an extremely porous material, she says, and requires constant maintenance. When restoration first started on the building, a lot of the terracotta was ready to fall off, and the board could have removed it, but instead chose to keep it, as it was representative of the style in the era the building was erected. Part of the continuing maintenance of this terracotta is to paint it with a special material. The commission, says Murphy, has another product that it wants to use instead—about five times as expensive—because it’s a better color match.
Another concern for the building residents is the windows. Many of the owners who live on the 18th floor and up replaced their double-pane windows with single-pane ones in order to have unobstructed views of Lower Manhattan, the Statue of Liberty and Verrazano bridge. Now, once those windows need to be replaced, residents will have to put back in double-pane ones since single pane windows didn’t exist in the late 1920s. Views can affect real estate value, and the return to the old windows could lower apartment prices, says Murphy.
She says the commission has assured residents that it will work with them and move quickly to approve repairs, but 75 Livingston’s architect has told them it will be at least three weeks to a month of additional time to get the filings and approvals from the city for any work done to the building’s exterior. She says that there might be room for compromise with the commission on specific projects or materials they can use, but it will still be a burden because the co-op board will need to hire architects to negotiate with the commission—at $350 an hour.
The Landmark Preservation Commission understands there may be some additional costs associated with being in a historic district. To relieve these extra costs, says de Bourbon, tax incentives and funding sources are available for owners of landmark buildings. This funding includes the commission’s grant program for income-eligible owners of designated properties, called the Historic Preservation Grant Program, she says, which provides up to $15,000 to income-eligible owners for the restoration or repair of their homes.
What effect landmark status has on property values is somewhat unclear. A 2003 study by the city’s Independent Budget Office shows that real estate “appreciates at a slightly greater rate than the value of comparable buildings outside of historic districts,” says de Bourbon. But the study only focused on one-, two- and three-family dwellings, and found no concrete evidence that districting itself causes higher real estate prices or appreciation. Mike Slattery, a senior vice president of the Real Estate Board of New York, says the board has learned that designation never creates value. In many ways it takes away value because of renovation restrictions, and its development will never be realized.
He says there isn’t enough consideration of costs and property owners’ opinions in the landmark designation process. “They’re only supposed to look at the worthiness of the building from a landmark point of view—questions of economics, questions of owner ability to pay, all of those issues our irrelevant to the designation,” he says.
De Bourbon says the criteria for landmark designation is that “the buildings must create a coherent streetscape, a distinct sense of place and represent one or more periods or styles of architecture typical of one or more eras of the history of New York City.”
Leave a Reply